Reconstruction talk:Proto-Slavic/vъtorъ

It just came to me like "eureka". Why don't we reconstruct it as h₂énteros or h₂onteros ? "vъ(n)" is reconstructed as h₁on. What do you think?

213.216.89.54 09:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)Mateusz

That's the only way to explain the connection with Lithuanian antras, Old Prussian antars and other cognates, so *vъtorъ < *vъntorъ, though it would be expected a form *ǫntorъ, *ǫntrъ, descended from a BSl *antaras, *antras. Ентусиастъ (talk) 12:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

PS *vъ(n) presupposes PBS *(w)un (which could be from PIE *(H)on with the auslaut sound laws), while PS *vъtorъ presupposes PBS *(w)u(C)taras, where *C should be an obstruent. This is difficult to get to work. Perhaps a special sound law is involved here, but on the surface, formally, no etymology really works out. However, getting to PBS *wutaras from PIE *(H)witoros or *(H)witeros looks easier than from PBS *ant(a)ras. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)